Health Care Bill Constitutionality?

[BeAChooser]

FDR was re-elected in 1936 btw.

Yes, but he took office in 1937.

He did attempt to stack the courts, yes, but that has little bearing on the fact that Congress does have the constitutional right to create new programs and tax the heck out of us for them.

You start by saying you believe Congress has the constitutional right to nationalize health care because FDR did something just as radical in the 1930s and cite a couple of Clinton Lackeys whose opinion was that what FDR did was constitutional simply because the courts of the time said it was constitutional. In response, I point out that the reason the courts said it was constitutional at the time (after first and unanimously saying it wasn't) is that FDR pressured them to do it by threatening to force the Justices to retire and/or stack the Court so that their votes effectively wouldn't matter. And now you say that has no bearing and simply claim (without evidence) that Congress has the right to create (any) new program it wants and tax the heck out of us (to whatever extent) to fund it? LOL!

Can you cite any program or tax that has been determined to exceed Congress' power in the last, say 50 years?

What does that have to do with anything? Just because the country went astray back in the 30's and allowed the Federal government to start inexorably acquiring more and more power to the detriment of states and individuals, doesn't mean that's what the framers of the Constitution intended or that Big Government is good for the country. All you are now suggesting is that one wrong justifies a second wrong.

You are effectively giving cart blanche to those who would make the Federal government as powerful and intrusive as those in power wish it to be ... states and individual be damned. Congratulations ... you've just made the Constitution a document that's not worth the paper it's printed on and formed the basis for just the sort of tyranny our founding fathers fought.

 

[tyr_13]

I apologize peptoabysmal, it seems BAC is going to focus on you for some reason, and ignore the well reasoned positions of others to focus on your well reasoned position.

I am deeply sorry.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Yes, but he took office in 1937.
You start by saying you believe Congress has the constitutional right to nationalize health care because FDR did something just as radical in the 1930s and cite a couple of Clinton Lackeys whose opinion was that what FDR did was constitutional simply because the courts of the time said it was constitutional. In response, I point out that the reason the courts said it was constitutional at the time (after first and unanimously saying it wasn't) is that FDR pressured them to do it by threatening to force the Justices to retire and/or stack the Court so that their votes effectively wouldn't matter. And now you say that has no bearing and simply claim (without evidence) that Congress has the right to create (any) new program it wants and tax the heck out of us (to whatever extent) to fund it? LOL!

This is what I *did* say: "He did attempt to stack the courts, yes, but that has little bearing on the fact that Congress does have the constitutional right to create new programs and tax the heck out of us for them." See Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution and the Necessary and Proper Clause and, of course, the Commerce Clause for evidence.

The "Clinton Lackeys" are with the DOJ and likely those same arguments and cases will be cited if it ever gets before the Supreme Court. My unqualified opinion is that those arguments will hold.

What does that have to do with anything? Just because the country went astray back in the 30's and allowed the Federal government to start inexorably acquiring more and more power to the detriment of states and individuals, doesn't mean that's what the framers of the Constitution intended or that Big Government is good for the country. All you are now suggesting is that one wrong justifies a second wrong.

I am not arguing the morals or the right /wrong of it, merely saying that I believe it will be upheld as Constitutional.

You are effectively giving cart blanche to those who would make the Federal government as powerful and intrusive as those in power wish it to be ... states and individual be damned. Congratulations ... you've just made the Constitution a document that's not worth the paper it's printed on and formed the basis for just the sort of tyranny our founding fathers fought.

Slippery slope, ain't it?

I think we are having a violent agreement.
I don't like this bill either.

 

[peptoabysmal]

I apologize peptoabysmal, it seems BAC is going to focus on you for some reason, and ignore the well reasoned positions of others to focus on your well reasoned position.

I am deeply sorry.

No need to feel sorry. I come here to have my assertions challenged.

 

[BeAChooser]

See Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution and the Necessary and Proper Clause and, of course, the Commerce Clause for evidence.

LOL! Now you are citing the same articles that the Supreme Court cited when it originally ruled FDR's New Deal programs and agencies unconstitutional.

I am not arguing the morals or the right /wrong of it, merely saying that I believe it will be upheld as Constitutional.

On what grounds? That no program or tax has been determined to exceed Congress' power in the last 50 years? Not that I bothered to check.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

That might be the "key" for making changes that would otherwise conflict with the Constitution, but it's clear that there are provisions for Congress to pass laws that it deems necessary and proper for the general welfare that fall within its enumerated powers.

The issue, of course, is that some of you think that this bill does not fall within its enumerated powers. I would again point to the general welfare clause, the interstate commerce clause and all the case law that supports the current relatively broad interpretation of those powers.

Up until FDR introduced his own brand of corruption into the system, there would have been no question. Consider, for example, that in pre-FDR times, when we wanted to ban alcohol at the federal level, there was no question that the federal government did not have any such power, and it was clearly understood that the only legitimate way to do it was to amend the Constitution in order to give it that power; hence the Eighteenth Amendment. Contrast this to the ease with which the federal government now carries out policies against other drugs, even in open defiance of the authority of states to pass their own laws regarding what is or is not legal in that category.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The Constitution does not state that the Federal Government has the power to run an Air Force or the FAA;therefore the Air Force and FAA are unconstitutional.
I don't know who taught you constitutional law but he needs to be fired, fast.

National defense is a duty specifically delegated to the federal government. It's not clear to me that the Constitution has much to say about which specific form the organizations must take to carry out this duty.

As for the FAA, I would agree as far as any intrastate flights are concerned. Any flight which begins, ends, and is completely contained within the boundaries of one state is none of the federal government's business. But air travel is very often across state lines, and even across national lines, which puts it in the federal jurisdiction, per the commerce clause.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Bobs theory is not strict constructionism, it's just batcrap crazy.

If that is so, then this nation was founded by men who were “batcrap crazy”, and who wrote a generous amount of “batcrap craziness” into its Constitution; and anyone who agrees with this Constitution, and with the principles upon which it is based, is “batcrap crazy”.

If this is to be the definition of “batcrap crazy”, then I will proudly describe myself as such.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

…Congress does have the constitutional right to create new programs and tax the heck out of us for them.

If this is so—to the degree that you claim—then the Tenth Amendment means nothing.

 

[KingMerv00]

Libel laws...constitutional or not BB?

 

[Alt+F4]

Up until FDR introduced his own brand of corruption into the system, there would have been no question. Consider, for example, that in pre-FDR times, when we wanted to ban alcohol at the federal level, there was no question that the federal government did not have any such power, and it was clearly understood that the only legitimate way to do it was to amend the Constitution in order to give it that power; hence the Eighteenth Amendment. Contrast this to the ease with which the federal government now carries out policies against other drugs, even in open defiance of the authority of states to pass their own laws regarding what is or is not legal in that category.

Wow, I can't believe that someone would use the 18th Amendment to try and prove how great the Constitution works.

Anyway, the federal government was banning, regulating and taxing drugs without Constitutional Amendments long before FDR became President. Check out the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 and the Harrison Narcotics Tax of 1914.

 

[FlamingMoe]

Can you cite any program or tax that has been determined to exceed Congress' power in the last, say 50 years?

Under just the commerce clause we have the Gun Free School Zones Act (held to exceed Congress' commerce clause authority by United States v. Lopez) and parts of the Violence Against Women Act (held unconsitutional on equal protection and commerce clause grounds by United States v. Morrison).

 

[Newtons Bit]

I know and my point still stands. State laws may not violate the US Constitution. If we interpret the constitution as BB and BAC suggest, then libel and slander should be legal.

See the supremacy clause for more information.

The Federal Constitution does not apply to State law, with the exception of what the 14th amendment has incorporated upon the States. This, as I understand it, is only privileges and immunities. The Necessary and Proper clause as well as the inter-state Commerce clause are items that are not incorporated.

 

[drkitten]

National defense is a duty specifically delegated to the federal government. It's not clear to me that the Constitution has much to say about which specific form the organizations must take to carry out this duty.

This says much about your unfamiliarity with the Constitution, I'm afraid. The Army and Navy are mentioned by name as the only forms of national defense authorize (and even then, with restrictions).

Article I, section 8:

The Congress shall have power ...

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

Nothing in there provides for air defense.

Similarly, article II, section 2, provides that

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,

Again, with no provision for air defense.

 

[Alt+F4]

Again, with no provision for air defense.

I know, but I like the Air Force and the Coast Guard!

 

[peptoabysmal]

LOL! Now you are citing the same articles that the Supreme Court cited when it originally ruled FDR's New Deal programs and agencies unconstitutional.

That's the thing about the Constitution and the Supreme Court, it is up to the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. Are you saying that the health care bill is exactly the same case as the new deal programs? My limited understanding of why the New Deal programs were nullified was that they delegated legislative power to create more laws. Does this heath care bill do that?

On what grounds? That no program or tax has been determined to exceed Congress' power in the last 50 years? Not that I bothered to check.

Specifically that Congress' power to create programs or raise taxes has not been challenged. I'm not saying everything that Congress does goes unchallenged, for example the latest move by Congress to deny funding to ACORN was ruled unconstitutional.

Let me take another approach with this. Forgive me if someone else has already done this in this thread. Let's say that I feel wronged by the health care bill and get myself an attorney. What is going to be the damage I am claiming? That the government raised my taxes? That is silly and would be dismissed instantly as the government can do that. How about that I was forced to buy health insurance? Well, there is nothing in this bill that forces me to buy insurance. I would pay higher taxes as the penalty for not buying health insurance, but I would not be put in prison. That works to about the same thing as opting not to put my money in a 401k.

 

[Alt+F4]

This says much about your unfamiliarity with the Constitution, I'm afraid. The Army and Navy are mentioned by name as the only forms of national defense authorize (and even then, with restrictions).

Indeed. This is where the strict constructionalists usually pull out clause 1, the "provide for the common defense and general welfare" part to justify creation of the Air Force. Well if it was ok for Congress to set up the Air Force if it's important for common defense, then Congress can establish other national institutions if they are important for the general welfare.

Such as national health care.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Up until FDR introduced his own brand of corruption into the system, there would have been no question.

So? Up until Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation, slavery was legal in some places in the U.S.

But this is the waning moments of 2009.

Do you think there is a viable case for the unconstitutionality of this health insurance reform bill today?

 

[KingMerv00]

The Federal Constitution does not apply to State law, with the exception of what the 14th amendment has incorporated upon the States.

I know this too.

I am discussing libel and slander. The free speech clause has been incorporated via the 14th amendment since Gitlow.

The Necessary and Proper clause as well as the inter-state Commerce clause are items that are not incorporated.

For the moment, I'm off on a different but closely related topic.I wasn't discussing the Commerce Clause with BB. I'm discussing BB's very strict contructionism.

I want to see how deep his rabbit hole goes.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I wasn't discussing the Commerce Clause with BB. I'm discussing BB's strict contructionism.

As I understand it, constructionism(sp???) doesn't put a limit on State Powers. And since libel laws are State Laws... well, I'm sure you get why I'm confused.